Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Scientists are testing that we are in the Matrix...


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
97 replies to this topic

#21 Severin   Members   -  Reputation: 234

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:42 AM

First of all, sorry for any grammar or spelling issues but English is not my first language.

The article mentions the possibility of communicating to those who created us, which, if done, would be irrefutable proof. For the religious among you, what would you do should it be proved irrefutably that we are indeed inside a simulation?


I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. But for me I am 100% percent sure that we are not in the matrix.
So if it would be proven that we are inside a simulation then that could be only possible if that experiment would have an error somewhere or if it would be a constructed lie (again with an error somewhere hidden) to mislead people.

Sponsor:

#22 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9732

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:13 AM

First of all, sorry for any grammar or spelling issues but English is not my first language.


The article mentions the possibility of communicating to those who created us, which, if done, would be irrefutable proof. For the religious among you, what would you do should it be proved irrefutably that we are indeed inside a simulation?


I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. But for me I am 100% percent sure that we are not in the matrix.
So if it would be proven that we are inside a simulation then that could be only possible if that experiment would have an error somewhere or if it would be a constructed lie (again with an error somewhere hidden) to mislead people.

I already have proof that God does not exist and the Bible is false. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not. See how that works both ways?

I am just happy to be on the winning side of this endless debate. It’s also fairly easy to be on the correct side:
Step 1: Have a brain.
Step 2: Use it to think for yourself.
-> A: Don’t just absorb everything your parents tell you. Question everything and seek true understanding.

The irony of what you posted is that you were completely unable to consider even for a fraction of a second that there might not be a God. This is a result of brainwashing that dictates that should your faith ever waver you will be punished.
This type of brainwashing is very easy for humans to impose upon other humans, especially children.
The reason this negates anything you say is because it causes you to believe what you believe no matter how conclusive the evidence before you is. We could discover that we are just a simulation, receive contact from our creators that confirm it is so, and you would still be too afraid to contradict the childhood doctrine taught to you to in any way consider that it is the truth. A simulation would have told you that there is a God, and as fake as the lesson itself was you would hold tightly to it just because you were young and incapable of thinking for yourself when it was taught to you.


When I said there was proof I was not lying. Without going into details, there are things you can tell children that are ridiculously false that they will end up believing for life and under any costs. Experiments show that they pass these beliefs on to their own children who then grow up believing them again at face value, never questioning their virtue.
I exaggerated when I said the proof was only given to myself, but I wasn’t lying about the underlying concept, as I was part of such an experiment. Had I not had a brain for myself I would to this day be absolutely terrified of peacock feathers.
Luckily I have a brain and could reason for myself. Looking back it is easy to identify that the only reason I had a phobia of them in the beginning was that my mother had made it so. Back then I was truly terrified of them. Luckily I was able to reason my way out of that phobia. My sister however was not. She is to this day deathly terrified of peacock feathers.

Religion works the same way. You either reason your way out of it or remain scarred for life from it. Even a message from our simulation’s creators would not break you free from what you were told as a child.


L. Spiro

Edited by L. Spiro, 14 December 2012 - 07:14 AM.

It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#23 Severin   Members   -  Reputation: 234

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:46 AM

The irony of what you posted is that you were completely unable to consider even for a fraction of a second that there might not be a God.


You was right when you assumed that at childhood I received religious teachings. But I never had a 100% faith and for years I did not care about God or religion.
Now I believe in God because of some experiences that assured me that He exists.

#24 slicer4ever   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2603

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:49 AM

*smells a does god exist debate incoming*
Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

#25 BMO   Members   -  Reputation: 170

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:36 AM


Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.

It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation.


You've kind of missed my point. The point is that the world has important issues that need to be solved. This is a bunch of wasted talent on a useless thought exercise. Cancer was just a random example of something important.

#26 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9732

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:41 AM

But I never had a 100% faith and for years I did not care about God or religion.
Now I believe in God because of some experiences that assured me that He exists.

Negated by the fact that I was taught that he does exist. I read religious books to my sister as a child in full faith that the words I told her were true.
Then realized that the things I was telling her did not make sense. I kept quiet about my disbelief so that I could have a fair chance to study both sides.

My only regret was that she was not as lucky as myself. I already realized that every other person would quickly try to step in and force their views onto me (I was 6 years old, so obviously aware of these kinds of psychological principals), so if I told her I would be risking everything. If she told anyone that I was seeking the truth instead of just following blind faith I would never be able to judge reality on neutral grounds.

The irony here is that her parent (guess what, she was only my step-sister, and her mother (her only parent) was not religious) never taught her religion. She learned it all from me.

So it is fairly obvious how religion spreads. I did it to my own sister. Everything she knows about religion came from me, and yet I myself never believed anything I told her (I was questioning things by the age of 4, which is when I began reading to her).

How is it not obvious to all religious people that this is exactly what happened to them?

You claim to be special. You were taught, then disbelieved, then regained faith.
Hardly. Whatever happened that caused you to regain faith would not have had the same result unless you had already been taught about religion in the first place. Firstly, no one learns about religion until taught. So no matter what your argument is it only ends up becoming religious because you were taught about religion at a young age. Nothing else. Even my 6-year-old self knew that.
You could experience any number of unexplainable coincidences, but you would never fall back on thinking it was a higher hand had you never been taught what a higher hand means. Unless you think for yourself from the start, everything you believe is just someone else’s thinking. Try to deny it.

The fact that you went back to religion simply means you never really left. Leaving religion means never going back. You simply understand enough to know that there is always a better explanation, and you are not so arrogant as to assume you know what that explanation is.

Ultimately you are nothing but a product of your upbringing, no matter how much you try to deny it.
The mental stability of children is precarious. I never really believed in God and yet I was the one who ended up making my step-sister into a devout Christian. Even to this day I could tell her it was all bullshit, and although I was the one teaching her, I knew it was wrong from the start, yet she would hold to her faith just because she was that young when I taught it to her.

You are no different. Even if the very people who taught you about God and Jesus were to turn around and tell you it was all just a joke or lie you would say to yourself, “This is just a test of my faith,” and continue living the lie.


You convince yourself that I am wrong because you believe you have special-case proof to the contrary that was apparently given only to you. Ironically, such arrogance basically condemns you to Hell. Nothing was given to you that was not given to anyone else.


L. Spiro

Edited by L. Spiro, 14 December 2012 - 08:42 AM.

It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#27 BMO   Members   -  Reputation: 170

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:59 AM

You simply understand enough to know that there is always a better explanation, and you are not so arrogant as to assume you know what that explanation is.


Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. This is why I'm agnostic. Even if I personally feel there is no god, I can't say that with 100% certainty because I'm only human and there are limits to the human brain.

Edit:
And it doesn't matter whats "proved" or not. There is a nice little saying that gives religious folks a loophole for everything: "God works in mysterious ways." You can rationalize that forever.

And it would actually lend support to the intelligent design crowd if scientist were to conclude the universe is a giant simulation.

Edited by BMO, 14 December 2012 - 09:05 AM.


#28 GeneralQuery   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1263

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:06 AM



Can't these guys work on something more important? Like curing cancer? Such a waste of brilliant minds.

It's not like they've pulled scientists of Team Cancer to stick them on this project. It's not an either/or situation.

You've kind of missed my point. The point is that the world has important issues that need to be solved. This is a bunch of wasted talent on a useless thought exercise. Cancer was just a random example of something important.

Scientific research isn't about someone assigning scientists to specific research topics, people go into areas of research of their own choosing because that is what they are interested in. Some people have a knack for theoretical physics. Some have a knack for revolutionary biology and so on. It's a false dichotomy to say that either a team of researchers explore this area of physics or they explore an other area of biology, that's not how research is conducted. And who's to say that this team of physicists would be any good at biology? Who's to say that cancer research (or whatever example you give) does not inspire them like their current area of research does? In any case, it's not like cancer hasn't been a massive area of research for many decades or anything.

#29 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 778

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:06 AM

Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant. This is why I'm agnostic. Even if I personally feel there is no god, I can't say that with 100% certainty because I'm only human and there are limits to the human brain.

And it doesn't matter whats "proved" or not. There is a nice little saying that gives religious folks a loophole for everything: "God works in mysterious ways." You can rationalize that forever.


I'm not agnostic, but I generally approve of this message. So far as I have heard, and I have heard a lot, there is no logical proof for or against a god/gods. It's just as ignorant for a person of faith to try to argue logically that there is a god as for someone to logically argue that there is not one. The former being distinctly different than arguing logically that there might be a god.

It doesn't really make sense to argue faith on logic anyway. If faith based beliefs were backed by universally provable logic, it would be a fact based belief not a faith based one. The nature of it being faith indicates that it would not be provable universally.

ANYWAY, HOW ABOUT THE MATRIX!

#30 BMO   Members   -  Reputation: 170

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:19 AM

Scientific research isn't about someone assigning scientists to specific research topics, people go into areas of research of their own choosing because that is what they are interested in. Some people have a knack for theoretical physics. Some have a knack for revolutionary biology and so on. It's a false dichotomy to say that either a team of researchers explore this area of physics or they explore an other area of biology, that's not how research is conducted. And who's to say that this team of physicists would be any good at biology? Who's to say that cancer research (or whatever example you give) does not inspire them like their current area of research does? In any case, it's not like cancer hasn't been a massive area of research for many decades or anything.


I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time. These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.

#31 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4068

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:32 AM

I already have proof that God exists and the Bible is true. Unfortunately this proof was given only to me. I can tell you my testimony but it is up to you if you believe me or not.

You are Joseph Smith! :)

EDIT:
By the way, "God exists" and "the Bible is true" are two entirely unrelated things. The Bible is provably not "The One Truth", but proving whether or not God exists remains a hard problem.

The only thing that is 100% certain is that what you find in your Bible has been
a) taken from a selection of abrahamic texts, reworded slightly different
b) stolen from pagan stories and beliefs
c) censored
d) rewritten

Seeing as Christmas is nigh, it's worth to mention that both Christmas and Easter are stolen from the pagans, too.

Insofar, what's in the Bible has very little, if anything, to do with what God said or what God wants (if God exists).

Edited by samoth, 14 December 2012 - 09:39 AM.


#32 L. Spiro   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 9732

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:45 AM

Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant.

But arrogance does not condemn me to hell. That logic only works on religious people. I am already fully aware of what happens in death, since I already experienced it before I was born. Do you not also remember that millenia of nothingness? It lasted over 10 billion times longer than you have been alive, so why would you forget?

Honestly, existence before life and after life are both exactly the same. Death is no mystery. We have all already been there. Why is this so hard for people to understand and accept?



It doesn't really make sense to argue faith on logic anyway. If faith based beliefs were backed by universally provable logic, it would be a fact based belief not a faith based one. The nature of it being faith indicates that it would not be provable universally.

But it can be demonstrated to be majorly psychological, since my step-sister’s faith can be proved as such. I know for a fact that her religious beliefs came entirely from myself and that I know everything I taught her was bullshit.

In other words you can explain down to the tiniest detail why, psychologically, people tend to buy into religion, and experiments prove those explanations to be entirely plausible. Since my sister and I were both part of the same experiment, if you have any belief in higher powers, then you must first explain why she is still deathly afraid of peacock feathers even though they can’t harm humans.
I know her fear. I shared it as a small child. I can’t explain what was happening in my mind but I “just knew” that that peacock feather was extremely painful, and any threats my mother made to beat me with it worked absolutely. And yet it never really caused me any pain. I literally remember her hitting me with it and screaming out loud at how terrible it was, yet looking back there was nothing by psychological pain. She simply convinced me that it would hurt from a very young age.

I was simply terrified of it and the pain was all in my head. I even remember when I was starting to become aware of that and my baby sitter told my mother, “The peacock feather isn’t working anymore.” Hello? I may be only 3 years old but I am in the same room as you and I do speak English!

I also remember that some of the other children she baby-sat were starting to become afraid of the peacock feather just based on my own fear of it.


Looking back, none of it was grounded. I was afraid of it because I was afraid of it. I even remember my mother finally giving in when I was 5 and laughing at how afraid I was of it.
Yet my sister never got over it. She is still terrified of peacock feathers. This is the nature of religion and is proved by countless psychological experiments.

On the other hand, when my mother stopped using the peacock she started using sticks and belts. Those actually hurt. I overcame the psychological attack only to be rewarded with actual physical pain. This seems to also be why religious people are religious. The alternative is too painful for them.


L. Spiro
It is amazing how often people try to be unique, and yet they are always trying to make others be like them. - L. Spiro 2011
I spent most of my life learning the courage it takes to go out and get what I want. Now that I have it, I am not sure exactly what it is that I want. - L. Spiro 2013
I went to my local Subway once to find some guy yelling at the staff. When someone finally came to take my order and asked, “May I help you?”, I replied, “Yeah, I’ll have one asshole to go.”
L. Spiro Engine: http://lspiroengine.com
L. Spiro Engine Forums: http://lspiroengine.com/forums

#33 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7919

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:52 AM

If this experiment bears out, won't it stand as proof of intelligent design? If we are in a simulation, someone designed that simulation. Maybe that's what God is: the designer of the simulation we run in. It certainly won't provide any kind of death blow to religion, as some people seem to think. If anything else, proving that there is a power greater than us capable of designing such a simulation will do quite the opposite.

It's a fascinating experiment, though I must admit, I don't really understand the science at work here and I'm not sure how a matching energy signature inside a model of our own proves anything but that we're pretty good at making models that simulate reality. But then outside of a small handful of people, who really does understand this kind of science? Still, it seems to me like we have a long time before we'll see any results from this, since according to TFA current models are able to simulate a model only slightly larger than the nucleus of a single atom; that's pretty far removed from a simulation of an entire universe, it seems.

#34 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4510

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:53 AM

A reminder. This thread is about "the Matrix". NOT about whether there's a God or if religion sucks. I rather there not be an unnecessary religion war.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#35 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4510

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:00 AM

If this experiment bears out, won't it stand as proof of intelligent design?

True, but it's intelligent design of a completely different sort. Most likely one that renders most if not all holy texts irrelevant. Plus this intelligent design would be more Spore than Sims.
Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#36 BMO   Members   -  Reputation: 170

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:01 AM


Except that definitively deciding there is no god is making the same logical fallacy and equally arrogant.

But arrogance does not condemn me to hell. That logic only works on religious people. I am already fully aware of what happens in death, since I already experienced it before I was born. Do you not also remember that millenia of nothingness? It lasted over 10 billion times longer than you have been alive, so why would you forget?

Honestly, existence before life and after life are both exactly the same. Death is no mystery. We have all already been there. Why is this so hard for people to understand and accept?

L. Spiro


I'm not condemning you to hell. I'm saying that declaring you know something with 100% certainty when its impossible to know for 100%, is arrogant. Whether that is for or against religion is irrelevant. You cannot prove something that is improvable, and all faith based religions are improvable. That's what makes it a faith based religion. You can't prove OR disprove it. Why is that so hard for you to figure out? You are continually making the same logical errors religious folks make, saying you know things for certain which are impossible to know and then declaring it as fact.

2 sides of the same coin.

Edited by BMO, 14 December 2012 - 10:03 AM.


#37 GeneralQuery   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1263

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:11 AM

I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time.

It's not a "waste of time", they're theoretical physicists, it's their job to ask such questions and investigate such things. Your argument is essentially "I think it's a waste of time when they could be solving bigger problems" which I have already explained is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or scenario no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy.

These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.


Do you have a source for this or are you making a rather large (and baseless) assumption here? I wouldn't put tic tac toe on the same footing as answering fundamental questions about the nature of the universe.

#38 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7919

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:30 AM

True, but it's intelligent design of a completely different sort. Most likely one that renders most if not all holy texts irrelevant. Plus this intelligent design would be more Spore than Sims.


How do you mean "different sort"? Are you trying to categorize Intelligent Design now, for the sole purpose of clinging to the idea that you are right in your beliefs, and those damned crazy religious folks are still wrong? If I wrote a computer program capable of simulating the universe, and intelligent life arose therein, wouldn't I have the stature of God in their eyes? Wouldn't I have dominion over their existence? Wouldn't I have caused them to be, and couldn't I cause them to be not with a casual flick of a switch? Wouldn't I have created the earth and the heavens and the waters, wouldn't I have created the animals and the plants and the men and women upon the earth? The stars in the sky? I mean, after all I created the whole universe. That's pretty much spot-on with the basic nature of just about any theological deity right there, so I really fail to understand how there could possibly be any kind of distinction between the Intelligent Design these guys are trying to prove, and the Intelligent Design that us religious folk have been talking about for thousands of years.

Holy texts are simply the things that people stuck in the simulation have been writing based on their vastly limited perspective. Of course they wouldn't get it right, any more than these guys can get it right with their currently limited model that is not much bigger than the nucleus of an atom. Humans have been working on limited information since the beginning of our species. Science itself operates on what you might call a set of faulty holy texts, many of which would also be made irrelevant by this experiment's success. A whole lot of human thought would be made irrelevant.

#39 BMO   Members   -  Reputation: 170

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:34 AM


I never said anyone was assigned to anything. I think they are wasting their time on something that is irrelevant. The worlds problems needs multi-disciplinary solutions (global warming for example needs physicists and biologists ect. ect. ad nauseum). Just because they chose to work on that project doesn't change the fact that it's a project that isn't worth the time.

It's not a "waste of time", they're theoretical physicists, it's their job to ask such questions and investigate such things. Your argument is essentially "I think it's a waste of time when they could be solving bigger problems" which I have already explained is a false dichotomy. It is not an either/or scenario no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy.

These are some of the worlds most brilliant minds working on something as important as figuring out the best way to win at tic tac toe. They may be passionate, but it's still a waste of human potential.


Do you have a source for this or are you making a rather large (and baseless) assumption here? I wouldn't put tic tac toe on the same footing as answering fundamental questions about the nature of the universe.


Thats not essentially my argument, thats exactly my argument. It's not a false dichotomy because I'm not saying there are ONLY two options. They could work on stuff that would answer questions AND save lives, but they aren't. I feel that it's a waste of time because it will help zero people. And I feel that the worlds smartest people should work on making the world a better place. I don't think they will ever answer anything and they are just running to nowhere on their hamster wheels in the name of science. Thats an opinion, not a fact.

What good will it do the world to know we are in a simulation when we are all dead? I think saving lives is far more important than answering questions that won't have any real effect. I personally feel that people that are as smart as they are have a moral obligation to help the society that educated them and I don't think this helps anyone. That's just like, my opinion, man.

#40 GeneralQuery   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1263

Posted 14 December 2012 - 10:45 AM

Thats not essentially my argument, thats exactly my argument. It's not a false dichotomy because I'm not saying there are ONLY two options.

"Why are they wasting their potential when they could be curing cancer?" is a false dichotomy. It's the choice between a) understanding the universe or b) curing cancer (or whatever example you choose). Cancer research is not being harmed because of this research whereas if the scientists involved were attempting to cure cancer instead then this research would not be conducted at all. That is an either/or scenario. Clearly people are researching both, ergo your argument, by definition, is a false dichotomy.

What about authors? Artists? Poets? All of these brilliant minds wasting their potential when they could be curing cancer. Who would want to live for longer in a world with no desire to understand and appreciate the beauty of life and the universe? Certainly not me.

They could work on stuff that would answer questions AND save lives, but they aren't. I feel that it's a waste of time because it will help zero people. And I feel that the worlds smartest people should work on making the world a better place. I don't think they will ever answer anything and they are just running to nowhere on their hamster wheels in the name of science. Thats an opinion, not a fact.

What good will it do the world to know we are in a simulation when we are all dead? I think saving lives is far more important than answering questions that won't have any real effect. I personally feel that people that are as smart as they are have a moral obligation to help the society that educated them and I don't think this helps anyone. That's just like, my opinion, man.

And how do you know that any answers this research gives us will be of no practical use?If everyone had your attitude then we wouldn't have the modern and advanced society (essential, ironically, to extending and increasing the quality of life). Electricity had no immediate use so we wouldn't have electrical appliances and equipment today. Quantum mechanics had no immediate use so we wouldn't have transistors (which are key to computing) today. Understanding the atom had no immediate use yet without it we wouldn't have chemistry as we know it today (including all of those drugs and treatments vital to extending life). None of the examples I gave were researched with the aim of saving lives and ironically these examples have been absolutely critical for saving lives on a massive scale yet no one foresaw this at the time.

Edited by GeneralQuery, 14 December 2012 - 10:47 AM.





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS